this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
528 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
3004 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says::Pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 172 points 10 months ago (72 children)

OK, so pay for it.

Pretty simple really.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 128 points 10 months ago (57 children)

Or let's use this opportunity to make copyright much less draconian.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 85 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (42 children)

¿Porque no los dos?

I don't understand why people are defending AI companies sucking up all human knowledge by saying "well, yeah, copyrights are too long anyway".

Even if we went back to the pre-1976 term of 28 years, renewable once for a total of 56 years, there's still a ton of recent works that AI are using without any compensation to their creators.

I think it's because people are taking this "intelligence" metaphor a bit too far and think if we restrict how the AI uses copyrighted works, that would restrict how humans use them too. But AI isn't human, it's just a glorified search engine. At least all standard search engines do is return a link to the actual content. These AI models chew up the content and spit out something based on it. It simply makes sense that this new process should be licensed separately, and I don't care if it makes some AI companies go bankrupt. Maybe they can work adequate payment for content into their business model going forward.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand why people are defending AI companies

Because it's not just big companies that are affected; it's the technology itself. People saying you can't train a model on copyrighted works are essentially saying nobody can develop those kinds of models at all. A lot of people here are naturally opposed to the idea that the development of any useful technology should be effectively illegal.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

This is frankly very simple.

  • If the AI is trained on copyrighted material and doesn't pay for it, then the model should be freely available for everyone to use.

  • If the AI is trained on copyrighted material and pays a license for it, then the company can charge people for using the model.

If information should be free and copyright is stifling, then OpenAI shouldn't be able to charge for access. If information is valuable and should be paid for, then OpenAI should have paid for the training material.

OpenAI is trying to have it both ways. They don't want to pay for information, but they want to charge for information. They can't have one without the either.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can make these models just fine using licensed data. So can any hobbyist.

You just can’t steal other people’s creations to make your models.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of course it sounds bad when you using the word "steal", but I'm far from convinced that training is theft, and using inflammatory language just makes me less inclined to listen to what you have to say.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Training is theft imo. You have to scrape and store the training data, which amounts to copyright violation based on replication. It’s an incredibly simple concept. The model isn’t the problem here, the training data is.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -2 points 10 months ago

Training is theft imo.

Then it appears we have nothing to discuss.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am not saying you can't train on copyrighted works at all, I am saying you can't train on copyrighted works without permission. There are fair use exemptions for copyright, but training AI shouldn't apply. AI companies will have to acknowledge this and get permission (probably by paying money) before incorporating content into their models. They'll be able to afford it.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What if I do it myself? Do I still need to get permission? And if so, why should I?

I don't believe the legality of doing something should depend on who's doing it.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yes you would need permission. Just because you’re a hobbyist doesn’t mean you’re exempt from needing to follow the rules.

As soon as it goes beyond a completely offline, personal, non-replicatible project, it should be subject to the same copyright laws.

If you purely create a data agnostic AI model and share the code, there’s no problem, as you’re not profiting off of the training data. If you create an AI model that’s available for others to use, then you’d need to have the licensing rights to all of the training data.

load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments (52 replies)
load more comments (66 replies)